Club World Casinos - licensed?

[The Dude]

Definitely suspicious, given the history of these deeply unpleasant folks.

Glad you managed to fight the attacks off successfully.

Same thing happened to GoneGambling.com over the weekend - Debbee's site - who also has been a bit vocal about this nefarious business activity.

 

[Tirilej]

Same thing happened to GoneGambling.com over the weekend - Debbee's site - who also has been a bit vocal about this nefarious business activity.

I'm not surprised at all!
I've been following the threads at AGD and GPWA as well, and it has been many threads and upset people. Also some more information about hacker accounts and AE changing affiliate rules.
I haven't seen any issues being solved yet though.
I can't see how they will manage to clear this up and make people trust them again, with or without AffPower.

 

[KasinoKing]

As if things weren't bad enough already - the new people running Affiliate Edge have just snuck this nasty little term into the affiliate conditions:



So affiliates who have been 100% loyal to AE for YEARS and sent 100's or even 1,000's of players on the basis of a life-time deal, are now going to get their earnings dramatically reduced (on any players who have not been de-tagged)

I think Bryan might have to add a Mega-Rogue Pit to the new site...

KK

 

[Webzcas]

Well this is a nice new clause added to the T & C's.

I think Bryan might have to add a Mega-Rogue Pit to the new site...

 

[The Dude]

So I guess this is why Ted Loh's account is at 10%, it's because he is dead and can't send any new traffic.

Absolutely loathsome. No scruples - no honor. More or less stealing from my dead friend's family.

@Stewart Ferster and Warren Ferster. You do know that Ted Loh's family was relying on that monthly revenue share, and that for 30 days of the year {in March no less} I would drive traffic to your casinos using his affiliate links. And now you choose screw over his widow and three children?

Great move.

 

[Tirilej]

So I guess this is why Ted Loh's account is at 10%, it's because he is dead and can't send any new traffic.

Absolutely loathsome. No scruples - no honor. More or less stealing from my dead friend's family.

@Stewart Ferster and Warren Ferster. You do know that Ted Loh's family was relying on that monthly revenue share, and that for 30 days of the year {in March no less} I would drive traffic to your casinos using his affiliate links. And now you choose screw over his widow and three children?

Great move.

When thinking about those stats you posted that can't be the reason. If I remember correct his players had dropped depositing several thousands per month, with just $365 the last month. It would give less anyway even if the deposits were the same though. Or did I read those stats totally wrong maybe. I'm always typing before thinking.

 

[The Dude]

When thinking about those stats you posted that can't be the reason. If I remember correct his players had dropped depositing several thousands per month, with just $365 the last month. It would give less anyway even if the deposits were the same though. Or did I read those stats totally wrong maybe. I'm always typing before thinking.

I think it's two fold. There is the detagging which many affiliates have evidence of, and then there is the unannounced (until right now) reduction of revenue share - which is being applied to affiliates retroactively.

This is the work of Affpower. And any affiliate program that applies these types of predatory terms retroactively to their current affiliates is rogue. No one should be supporting this.

 

[FeC]

Coincidentally since the rogue listing, we've had no less then two minor DDoS attacks on the site. May be a coincidence, but the timing is suspect.

Like this? (see attachment).

The third after rogue listing, second in two days.
I'm not accusing anyone but... strange coincidences sometimes appear in this industry. A bunch of DDoS attack when we were investigating for fake games, now...

 

[Webzcas]

Ok, there are still developments here concerning the Club World Group and Affiliate Edge. What has transpired only further condemns Stuart and Warren Ferster and their actions at Club World.

I spoke to Michael Corfman of CasinoCity and the GPWA on the phone yesterday concerning the Club World Group. Last night Michael posted in the GPWA forums the following correspondence he has had with Stuart Ferster. FYI Affiliate Edge have been suspended by the GPWA and the actions that they have taken, will no doubt NOT see them return anytime soon as a sponsor.

If you play at any of the Club World Brands, please refrain from doing so and also close your account. If you are an affiliate still promoting Affiliate Edge, please cease doing so and pull your links.

Michael has given me permission to quote him below:

Affiliate Edge recently made a change to their terms and conditions. Specifically, they introduced a very steep quota:

Affiliates who send 5 FTD's or less over a 2 calendar month period collectively will be marked as 'non active' and will be reduced to 10% default commission.

In response to this term change, I had the following email exchange with Stuart Ferster, one of the three owner's of Affiliate Edge that has been in communication with me:

Quote Originally Posted by Michael Corfman

Stuart,

I’m sitting here kind of shaking my head in disbelief.

You have a brand with some fires to put out right now or the whole thing will burn down.

Why, in that context, would you choose to throw gasoline on the fires you already have to deal with by making changes to Affiliate Edge’s terms and conditions?

If you think about it, even for a second, I’m sure you will be able to see you are getting bad advice, especially right now.

I don’t know who is advising you on these matters, but the actions taken based on their advice indicate that they are not someone whose opinion you should trust. It is clear you will be much better off if you terminate your relationship with them immediately.

Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Ferster

Hi Michael

Thank you again for the email.

This was a business decision, Let me explain. When the business was run by xxxxxx we noticed when we took over he had allot of payments to 'consultants/others' we noticed in recent times that affiliates were not earning what they should for sending traffic. (make of that what you will) we want all active affiliates to grow the business and be paid for EVERYTHING, to do this with a streamlined business we cannot justify as allot of programs do paying no negative carryover and for affiliates who have not been active for years

Quote Originally Posted by Michael Corfman

Stuart,

I understand what you are saying.

However, I respectfully disagree with your analysis of the situation...

The terms you have adopted will mean the vast majority of affiliates will decide they cannot work with you, and for those affiliates, attacking your brands will make business sense. Not a good situation if you want to survive over the longer term.

It moves your organization from being one with friendly affiliate relations to one [with] perhaps the worst terms I have seen for any affiliate program.
Such a transition, together with the fact that the vast majority of affiliates will find it makes no economic sense to work with you, will fuel a significant and even more negative reaction than you have already seen.

In fact, I expect even many affiliates where it might continue to make personal economic sense to continue to work with your brand will decide that they don’t want to do that just because of the negative publicity from others.

Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Ferster
I will discuss this email with the management team urgently

Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Ferster
regarding the new terms - they are the managements decisions and are final. It is done to create more traffic and grow the business and we have had no complaints from active affiliates, the same way we have had no issues from any negative forum posts on anyones forums from active affiliates directly and we are currently reaching record numbers so we are happy with the honest and fair way we are running this and find that paying affiliates the full amount owed and on time and working with ones who are serious in promoting the brands is our business goal.

I have not yet replied to the last email I received from Stewart, but the only thing I can think to say right now is "Good luck with that." So I am waiting to see if I can come up with a more constructive response.

Michael

FYI the change to the T&C's has NOT been communicated to affiliates

Thread for reference:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[colinsunderland]

we have had no complaints from active affiliates, the same way we have had no issues from any negative forum posts on anyones forums from active affiliates directly

 

[shewoff]

I would very much like to see the the sheet graph on the loss of the affiliates that have pulled out due to the new T&C changes. It only makes sense that it would be at least 25% to 30% maybe more.
I fail to see HOW a business could "GROW" with those kind of loss's? With no real ability to replace the lost affiliate's.It would and should be as obvious as the nose on your face.Maybe losing money is the real object here?

I have always been in agreement with anyone with the drive and time and money to make other people richer in search of their dream's. It is a fact of life, BUT to help a group of money men with putting the screw's to your fellow affiliates and any potential player's that would be diverted by those affiliates is WRONG!

As much as I hate to see this. It would appear that the only cure for the problem would be to deprive the new management of any and all profit's that could and would come from new and old affiliates. Or to pursue a legal answer to the question and who has the time or money for such a long drawn out recourse? Doom seem's to be the outlook. Peace Out! Out Of The Mist! shewoff

 

[vinylweatherman]

This could be a crude attempt to blackmail affiliates into NOT pulling their links and risk being classed as "inactive" and cut back to 10%.

Such targets also encourage spam as affiliates come under intense pressure to keep hitting that 5 player target or risk a significant financial penalty. A sudden increase in spam for Affiliate Edge casinos will be what players will notice. CWC was one of those groups that operated a zero tolerance attitude on spam, hence CWC spam was about as rare as 32Red spam, whereas AffPower spam was constantly flooding my inbox, even though they didn't have a UK licence.

Those affiliates who are heavily reliant on income from Affiliate Edge, having worked with them for a decade, will now face a stark choice between doing the right thing and risking the loss of a major source of revenue, or yielding to the pressure and trying to hit the 5 new signups target in order to protect their revenue stream.

Only PLAYERS jumping ship en masse will solve the dilemma, as 10% of nothing is no different to 40% of nothing.

UK players have been fortunate in that they were booted from CWC due to our new gambling laws, but player from elsewhere in Europe are not so lucky.

The court case made Jonathan look REALLY bad, but what he did may have a great deal to do with trying to duck and dive with the DoJ, FBI, and NSA trying (and sometimes succeeding) in stealing PLAYERS' payouts as a means of shutting down these offshore gambling operations. Of course, a high court judge is going to take a very dim view of all of this, but since 2006 this has been "normal practice" for operating within the US market. AffPower of course have experience in the US market, but they decided to take a rogue approach to staying viable, shaving commissions and screwing over big winners.

The inexperience of the remaining brothers may well allow the DoJ and FBI to finally catch up with them, and they could lose their entire US player base overnight as players suddenly find the "swift payments" are replaced with "delays and BS excuses". The court case alone is enough for the DoJ to know the three individuals who are the ultimate owners, and even where they live, rendering all previous efforts to keep this information cloaked behind trusts and shell companies worthless.

Whatever pittance Jonathan got for his 33% stake, it's likely to be a far better deal than his two brothers will end up with for theirs if they carry on like this.

 

[Webzcas]

This could be a crude attempt to blackmail affiliates into NOT pulling their links and risk being classed as "inactive" and cut back to 10%.

To be fair VWM I think you credit Stuart and Warren Ferster with too much intelligence. As their actions over the course of the past few weeks has shown they are challenged upstairs as it were.

Anyhow, I am sure B won't mind, here is my take on their own downfall.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[vinylweatherman]

To be fair VWM I think you credit Stuart and Warren Ferster with too much intelligence. As their actions over the course of the past few weeks has shown they are challenged upstairs as it were.

Anyhow, I am sure B won't mind, here is my take on their own downfall.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Maybe, but a high court judge has brought Jonathan's conduct into question in the way he played the corporate game behind operating an offshore gambling operation aimed at "grey markets". If the other pair had fabricated the evidence well enough to fool a high court judge, they must have a degree of intelligence, if total lack of experience in the gambling sector.

This dispute has been simmering for ages, and I am wondering whether it was behind the "technical issues" that some CWC players were reporting a while back over delayed payments. In particular, the "freeze and preservation of evidence" order the two brothers managed to obtain.

 

[Webzcas]

Latest APCW video.